DARIUS MAHDJOUBI, P.Eng.
SCHUMPETERIAN ECONOMICS
AND THE TRILOGY OF ‘INVENTION-INNOVATION-DIFFUSION’
INTRODUCTION
The R&D-based Linear model of innovation is structured on three consecutive stages: Basic
Research, Applied Research and Development. ‘Keynesian Economics and the Linear Model of
Innovation’ of this series, studied the role of innovation in the Keynesian economics, the dominant
economic doctrine in the wake of the Second World War. That report concluded that that the
Linear (R&D) model acted as the tacit innovation base for Keynesian economics.
It is worthy of mentioning that the R&D formation is not the only model for innovation. In the
economics and management textbooks, indeed, there exists a wide range of references to another
formation, which is based on the Trilogy of “Invention - Innovation - Diffusion.” This trilogy has
widely been referred to Joseph Schumpeter, who has been credited for elaborating this formation
and being praised as the economists who integrated innovation in the economic studies. Richard
Swedberg (1991) indicates that Schumpeter’s fame among mainstream economists rest on his
attempt to introduce technical change into marginal utility analysis1. Schumpeter’s thoughts have
not yet passed out the circle of academia and intellectuals, probably because “Schumpeter did not
want to write for the common reader but only for the elected2".
This report intends to spread a new light on what Schumpeter wrote about innovation. It argues
that Schumpeter’s main attention was the business cycles rather than innovation. Schumpeter
employed innovation to explain the nature of the business cycles. No doubt, Schumpeter is ahead
of other economists of this century to considering a role for innovation in the process of economic
development. However, in his studies Schumpeter himself has rarely been endeavored to a deep
study of the process of innovation, and specifically the Trilogy of ‘Invention-innovation diffusion’.
SCHUMPETER’S BIOGRAPHY
Joseph Alois Schumpeter (1883-1950) was born in Triest, then part of the
Austro-Hungarian Empire. In 1901 Schumpeter enrolled at the University of
Vienna and began to study economics; then in 1906 he received his Ph.D. when
was just 23 years old. In 1908 he wrote the preface to his first book: The Nature
and Essence of Theoretical Economics; in 1911 published “The Theory of
Economic Development”, and in 1914 he wrote “Economic Doctrine and
Method.” In 1919 he became a professor of economics.
© Darius Mahdjoubi, 1997
E-Mail: [email protected]
On March 15, 1919, Schumpeter became the finance minister in the new Austrian government,
which was a coalition government made up of the Social Democrats and members of the Christian
Social Party. After a few months, on October 17, 1919, he resigned. Richard Swedberg, his
biographer believes it is generally agreed that Schumpeter was a failure as finance minister3.
In 1921 Schumpeter became the president of a small and highly respected Viennese banking house,
the Beidermann Bank. Schumpeter’s venture into banking ended badly. In 1924 the bank became
insolvent, Schumpeter had to resign and the bank was liquidated. In the same year he published a
thoroughly revised edition of The Theory of Economic Development. From 1925 to 1932, he was
the Chair of Public Finance at the University of Bonn.
From 1932 until his death in 1950, Schumpeter lived in the US and was a Harvard Professor. In
1933 he taught the first course in mathematical economics at Harvard. In 1934 an English
translation of The Theory of Economic Development and in 1939 Schumpeter’s Business Cycles
appeared. In 1942 Schumpeter published ‘Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy’. Schumpeter
died on January 7, 1950.
THE TRILOGY OF INNOVATION
In the economics and management textbooks there exist a wide range of reference the Trilogy of
‘Invention-Innovation-Diffusion’. The following notes by Paul Stoneman (19954) provides an
insight to this matter:
The Schumpeterian trilogy that divides the technological change process into three
stages is often considered to provide a useful taxonomy. The first stage is the
invention process, encompassing the generation of new ideas. The second stage is
the innovation process encompassing the development of new ideas into
marketable products and processes. The third stage is the diffusion stage, in which
the new products and processes spread across the potential market. The impact of
new technology occurs at the diffusion stage and thus the measurement of impact is
very much a measurement of how the economy changes as new technologies are
introduced and used.
The Schumpeterian trilogy uses ‘innovation’ to describe a particular stage in the
technological process. Innovation, is however, used widely as a term to describe
the whole technological change process representing a shorthand for doing
something new.
The Schumpeterian trilogy can be matched to other concepts used in the literature.
Commonly, science is associated with the early stages in the trilogy, say, invention,
whereas technology is often associated with later stages in the trilogy. The
Schumpeterian trilogy may also be related to the research and development process.
R&D is often broken down in to basic and applied research and development
spending. In terms of the Schumpeterian trilogy, basic research will relate closely
to the invention process, applied research and development will relate to the
innovation stage.
SCHUMPETERIAN ECONOMICS AND THE TRILOGY OF ‘INVENTION- INNOVATION-DIFFUSION’
Page 2
In the last paragraph of the above, the inter-link among the three stages of “Invention, innovation
and diffusion” and R&D is quite interesting. Although there may be no such as direct relationships
between the two paradigms. As an example, Einstein’s work in theoretical physics, which is an
excellent example of basis research, is not being considered as ‘invention’. How many patents did
hold Einstein? On the other hand, Edison’s works, which is a classical example of invention, has
not been based on his ‘basis research’ works.
Schumpeter’s own writings, however, do not articulate the distinction between the above trilogy.
In “The Creative Response in Economic History 5 ”, which is a document among his last
published articles, Schumpeter refers to ‘innovation’ as “The doing of new things or the doing of
things that are already being done in a new way.” The following parts, from “Business Cycle6”,
reveal Schumpeter’s own understanding of the relationships between “Invention” and
“Innovation”:
[I]n short, any “doing things differently” in the realm of economic life - all these are
instances of what we shall refer to by the term Innovation. It should be noticed at
once that that concept not synonymous with “invention”. Whatever the latter term
may mean, it has but a distant relation to ours. Moreover, it carries misleading
associations.
First, it suggests a limitation which is most unfortunate because it tends to veil the
true contours of the phenomenon. It is entirely immaterial whether an innovation
implies scientific novelty or not. Although most innovations can be traced to some
conquest in realm of either theoretical or practical knowledge, there are many
which cannot. Innovation is possible without anything we should identify as
invention and invention does not necessarily induce innovation, but produces of
itself no economically relevant effect at all. The economic phenomena which we
observe in the special case in which innovation and invention coincide do not differ
from those we observe in cases in which preexisting knowledge is made use of.
Stressing the elements of invention or defining innovation by invention would,
therefore, not only mean stressing an element without importance to economic
analysis, but it would also narrow down the relevant phenomenon to what really is
but part of it.
Second, even where innovation consists in giving effect, by business action, to a
particular invention which has either emerged automatically or has been made
especially in response to a given business situation the making of the invention and
the carrying out of the corresponding innovation are two entirely different things.
They often have been performed by the same person; but this is merely a chance
coincidence which does not affect the validity of the distinction. Personal aptitudes
- primarily intellectual in the case of inventor, primarily volitional in the case of the
businessman who turns the invention into an innovation - and the methods by
which the one and the other work, belong to different spheres. The social process
which produces inventions and the social process which produces innovations do
not stand in any invariant relation to each other and such relation as they display is
SCHUMPETERIAN ECONOMICS AND THE TRILOGY OF ‘INVENTION- INNOVATION-DIFFUSION’
Page 3
much more complex than appears.
In many important cases, invention and innovation are the result of conscious
efforts to cope with a problem independently presented by an economic situation
or certain features of it. Sometimes innovation is so conditioned, whereas the
corresponding invention occurred independently of any practical need. This is
necessarily so whenever innovation makes use of an invention or a discovery due to
a happy accident, but also in other cases. It might be thought that innovation can
never be anything else but an effort to cope with a given economic situation. In a
sense this is true. For a given innovation will satisfy them, and as a rule they can be
satisfied in many different ways. Most important of all, they may remain
unsatisfied for an indefinite time, which shows that they are not in themselves
sufficient to produce an innovation.
We will now define innovation more rigorously by means of the production
function previously introduced. This function describes the way in which quantity
of product varies if quantities of factors vary. If, instead of quantities of factors, we
vary the form of the function, we have an innovation. ... We will simply define
innovation as the setting up of a new production function. This covers the case of
a new commodity, as well as those of a new form of organization. ... Innovation
combines factors in a new way.
Obviously, Schumpeter in the above is silent on ‘Diffusion” of the Trilogy of “Invention Innovation - Diffusion.”
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Drucker (1986) believes “Schumpeter insisted that ‘innovation’-that is entrepreneurship that
moves resources from old and obsolescence to new and more productive employments - is the very
essence of economics and most certainly of a modern economy”7. Schumpeter, however, does not
seem to be so crystal clear on this matter. In Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy8, page 132
Schumpeter writes:
“[T]he function of entrepreneurs is to reform or revolutionize the pattern of
production by exploiting an invention or, more generally, an untried technological
possibility for producing a new commodity or producing an old one in a new way,
by opening up a new source of supply of material or a new outlet for products, by
reorganizing an industry and so on. This [entrepreneurial] function does not
essentially consist in either inventing anything or otherwise creating the condition
which the enterprise exploits. It consists in getting things done.
Schumpeter, then, continues as in the following interesting fashion:
“This social function [i.e. entrepreneurship] is already losing importance and is
bound to lose it at an accelerating rate in the future even if the economic process
SCHUMPETERIAN ECONOMICS AND THE TRILOGY OF ‘INVENTION- INNOVATION-DIFFUSION’
Page 4
itself of which entrepreneurship was the prime mover went on unabated. For, on the
one hand, it is much easier now than it has been in the past to do things that lie
outside familiar routine - innovation itself is being reduced to routine.
Technological progress is increasingly becoming the business of teams of trained
specialists who turn out what is required and make it work in predictable ways.”
In “The Creative Response in Economic History9”, Schumpeter writes:
It is particularly important to distinguish the entrepreneurs from the “inventor”.
There is no necessary connection between the two functions. The inventor
produces ideas, the entrepreneur “gets things done”, which may but need not
embody anything that is scientifically new. Moreover, an idea or scientific
principle is not, by itself, of any importance for economic practice. “Getting new
things done” is not only a distinct process but it is a process that produces
consequences that are an essential part of capitalist reality. It is in most cases only
one man or a few men who see the new possibility and are able to cope with the
resistance and difficulties with which action always meets outside of the ruts of
established practice.
He believed technological competition through new and improved products and processes was an
order of magnitude more important that ‘normal’ price competition between firms, which was the
subject of most orthodox theory of economics.
SCHUMPETER AND THE ECONOMIC CYCLES
Schumpeter’s main attention was economic cycles, a topic he deeply studied. Schumpeter (192710)
argues that “There are really four groups of problems which come under the head of “Industrial
Fluctuations”: The “seasonal fluctuations”, the “cycle”, the “long waves” and the “sectoral trend”.
By “theory of the business cycle” we may mean, first, an analysis of any single one of the cycles
which history records, or, arising out of such analysis of many or all recorded cycles, a reasoned
history of the phenomenon. According to Graham Bannock (198711.), Schumpeter built up a
theory of the trade cycle which was based on three time periods, (a) short, (b) medium, and (c) long,
to each of which he attributed different causes.
Richard Swedberg 12 considers that “in Schumpeter’s opinion, the Depression could not be
alleviated by interventions of the state. The business cycle should not be disrupted; it had to work
itself out, through the downs as well as ups. Schumpeter was extremely critical of Roosevelt and
his New Deal.” This is probably the main practical distinction between the Keynes’ and
Schumpeter’s economics.
SCHUMPETERIAN ECONOMICS AND THE TRILOGY OF ‘INVENTION- INNOVATION-DIFFUSION’
Page 5
1REFERENCES
1
Richard Swedberg, 1991, Joseph Schumpeter: A Bibliographical Profile. .Appeared as the introduction to The
Economics and Socialism of Capitalism, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
2
Richard Swedberg, 1991, Joseph Schumpeter: A Bibliographical Profile. .Appeared as the introduction to The
Economics and Socialism of Capitalism, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
3
Richard Swedberg, 1991, Joseph Schumpeter: A Bibliographical Profile. .Appeared as the introduction to The
Economics and Socialism of Capitalism, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey
4
Paul Stoneman, 1995, The Handbook of Economics of Innovation and Technological Change, Blackwell,
Cambridge MA.
5
Schumpeter, 1947, “The Creative Response in Economic History , The Journal of Economic History. (Reprinted
in Joseph Schumpeter (Edited by Richard Swedberg), 1991, The Economics and Socialism of Capitalism, Princeton
University Press, Princeton, New Jersey)
6
Joseph Schumpeter, 1964, Business Cycles, McGraw-Hill New York. This book originally published in 1939.
7
Drucker, 1986
8
Joseph Schumpeter, 1942, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Harper and Row, New York.
9
Schumpeter, 1947, “The Creative Response in Economic History , The Journal of Economic History. (Reprinted
in Joseph Schumpeter (Edited by Richard Swedberg), 1991, The Economics and Socialism of Capitalism, Princeton
University Press, Princeton, New Jersey)
10
Joseph Schumpeter, 1927, The Explanation of the Business Cycle. Appeared in Joseph Schumpeter (Editor
Richard Clemence ), 1951, Essays of Economic Topics of J A Schumpeter, Kennikat Press, Port Washington NY.
(Reprinted from Economica, Dec. 1927).
11
Graham Bannock, R.E. Baxter and Evan Davis, 1987, The Penguin Dictionary of Economics, Penguin, London
12
Richard Swedberg, 1991, Joseph Schumpeter: A Bibliographical Profile. .Appeared as the introduction to The
Economics and Socialism of Capitalism, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey
1
First version: November 21, 1997, Last revision: January 24, 1999
SCHUMPETERIAN ECONOMICS AND THE TRILOGY OF ‘INVENTION- INNOVATION-DIFFUSION’
Page 6